Home Instead

Updated 27 January 2021

As part of a pilot into virtual inspections of domiciliary and extra-care housing services, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) conducted an inspection of this provider on 10 November 2020. The inspection was carried out with the consent of the provider and was part of a pilot to gather information to inform CQC whether it might be possible to conduct inspections in a different way in the future. We completed this inspection using virtual methods and online tools such as electronic file sharing, video calls and phone calls to gather the information we rely on to form a judgement on the care and support provided. At no time did we visit the provider's or location's office, as we usually would, when conducting an inspection.

Inspection team

The inspection was conducted by an inspector, a member of the CQC medicines inspection team, and two experts by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

The provider had already consented to be part of this pilot project. We gave 48 hours' notice of the inspection so the provider could share the documents we needed to view.

Inspection activity started on 10 November 2020 and ended on 24 November 2020.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since it was last inspected by us on 13 November 2017. This included notifications of significant events and other contact with the provider and stakeholders.

During the inspection

We spoke with the registered manager and the deputy manager. We reviewed a range of records. These included eight people’s care records, three staff files in relation to recruitment. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including quality audits, monitoring reports, risk assessments as well as policies and procedures relating to the running of the service

After the inspection

The registered manager sent us documents and additional information we had requested. We spoke with five people who used the service and 16 relatives. We contacted the staff to get their views about working for the agency. We received 21 responses. ‘Caregiver’ is a term used by the service for their care staff and has been used in some people’s quotes about care staff.

Updated 27 January 2021

This report was created as part of a pilot which looked at new and innovative ways of fulfilling CQC's regulatory obligations and responding to risk in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. This was conducted with the consent of the provider. Unless the report says otherwise, we obtained the information in it without visiting the provider.

About the service

Home Instead Senior Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. At the time of the inspection it was providing a service to approximately 70 people.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People overwhelmingly described the staff as kind, caring and compassionate. People were treated with the utmost respect and were encouraged to live as dignified and as independently as possible. Peoples choices and wishes were respected. People were matched to the staff to ensure they had things in common and therefore make for a happy and fulfilling care experience.

People and their relatives all spoke positively of the service as a whole and spoke very highly of the leadership and registered manager.

People were at the heart of the service, there was a strong person-centred ethos which was embedded within all aspects of care and which was known and valued by staff.

All staff had clear roles and responsibilities and understood the values of the service.

The registered manager was highly visible and motivated staff. Staff were proud to work for the service and felt truly appreciated and supported. The management were proud of the diversity of the workforce and this diversity improved outcomes for people using the service.

People who used the service and the staff supporting them had regular opportunities to comment on service provision and made suggestions regarding quality improvements. People told us that the management listened to them and acted on their suggestions and wishes. Everyone working at the agency understood the need to be open and honest if mistakes were made.

The service worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to support care provision, service development and joined-up care. Managers proactively engaged with the local community and were always striving to improve.

The registered manager understood the importance of monitoring the safety and quality of the service to maintain exceptionally high standards of care.

Staff treated people as unique individuals who had different likes, dislikes, needs and preferences. Staff and management made sure no one was disadvantaged because of their age, gender, sexual orientation, disability or culture. Staff understood the importance of upholding and respecting people’s diversity.

People and their relatives were fully involved in developing their plans of care. Staff were provided with personalised information on how to best support people. People told us that staff took their time to get to know them as individuals and that they enjoyed their company

People using the service trusted the staff and felt safe with them. People were involved in decisions about their care and assessing potential risks to their safety. Ways to reduce these risks had been explored and were being followed appropriately.

Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from potential abuse, bullying or discrimination. Staff knew what to look out for that might indicate a person was being abused.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff understood the way people expressed their views and the service made sure no one was disadvantaged because of the different ways people communicated.

People’s medicines were managed safely. People told us they were satisfied with the support they received to manage their medicines where this was part of their care package.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 16 January 2018)

Why we inspected

This was a planned pilot virtual inspection. The report was created as part of a pilot which looked at new and innovative ways of fulfilling CQC's regulatory obligations and responding to risk in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. This was conducted with the consent of the provider. Unless the report says otherwise, we obtained the information in it without visiting the Provider.

The pilot inspection considered the key questions of safe and well-led and provide a rating for those key questions. Only parts of the effective, caring and responsive key questions were considered, and therefore the ratings for these key questions are those awarded at the last inspection.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information, we may inspect sooner.